I fully support doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. Such as? Kicking in the head of a racist.

The expression "doing the wrong thing for the right reasons" means when you have good intentions but mistakenly do the wrong thing.

"Kicking in the head of a racist" just because you don't like their beliefs... is just plain wrong. No "right reasons" involved.

Anyone who would do such a thing is merely an amoral, violent criminal. End of story.

As for your example of the man who wished to press assault charges... It's not relevant. The police routinely make judgements based on the law and on the likelihood of securing a conviction, but not based on morality. The woman in your story was NOT justified in resorting to physical violence just because the man called her a name. Whether the police decided to press charges or not is irrelevant to the moral question.

If someone calls me a racist name, do I have the right to resort to physical violence? Of course not. Nobody does. Physical violence is ONLY justified when your life/health or the life/health of another is endangered by a criminal, to defend your property from a criminal or to restrain a criminal following the commission of a crime until the police arrive.

"Kicking in the head of a racist" just because you don't like their beliefs... is just plain wrong. No "right reasons" involved.

If you don't beat the ass of a racist, your death maybe the result in the next encounter, if you have my brown skin color.
You must put these people in their place or that will be the last error you will ever make, if you don't.

If you don't beat the ass of a racist, your death maybe the result in the next encounter, if you have my brown skin color.
You must put these people in their place or that will be the last error you will ever make, if you don't.

Now that's a bit exaggerated huh? Besides, IF you "beat the ass of a racist" you're actually MORE likely to trigger yet another violent act. The racist will not merely shrug your beating off will he?

@Nancy: I think noone claims that you must not take action. There are alternatives to physical violence you know.

That isn't an exaggeration, it's the straight facts.
If you don't whip their ass you will end up DEAD, next time.
You must beat them so bad, that you make them wish to their God, that they never had cross you.
Simple as that, Vaelastraz.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vaelastraz

Besides, IF you "beat the ass of a racist" you're actually MORE likely to trigger yet another violent act. The racist will not merely shrug your beating off will he?

All these people understand is violence.
The people who didn't familiarize these racist scum to an ass whipping, are DEAD now.
Taking the nonviolent route, will give you the shortcut to your grave, thats what that stupid choice will do for you; if your skin color is brown. Race fueled murders are still with us in the U.S., they aren't history yet people.

Your "proposal" is irrelevant, since no-one is suggesting that "no action should be taken". Merely that disproportionate violence is NOT a valid response, and is NOT the correct action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

My point is that by rights Israel is not allowed to retalliate against Palestinion terrorists if it's wrong, and that means they get away with their acts. How moral is that?

The problem with Israel's policy is that it doesn't just "retaliate against Palestinian terrorists". Instead, Israel kills massive numbers of innocent Palestinian civilians, imprisons massive numbers of innocent Palestinian civilians, persecutes the Palestinian people in almost every way imaginable... and this is not a justified nor proportionate response to attacks on Israelis by a minority of violent terrorists.

If Israel "just retaliated against Palestinian terrorists" I don't think people would have such a problem with its actions.

-

Quote:

Originally Posted by windu6

If you don't beat the ass of a racist, your death maybe the result in the next encounter, if you have my brown skin color.
You must put these people in their place or that will be the last error you will ever make, if you don't.

I'm loth to respond, but for the sake of completeness I shall... This comment is nonsense, it is completely devoid of any logic and totally disregards reality.

It assumes:

1. That all racists are violent, but not only violent, they are all violent enough to KILL!
2. That beating up a racist will not trigger a violent backlash from the racist's friends or family.

I'm loth to respond, but for the sake of completeness I shall... This comment is nonsense, it is completely devoid of any logic and totally disregards reality.

You know Spider, I wasn't expecting you to respond.

Do you assume everything is nonsense ?
I don't know what la la land you're living in but these racist scum don't use logic, they aren't rational.Racism is what is nonsense, Spider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL

It assumes:

1. That all racists are violent, but not only violent, they are all violent enough to KILL!

The majority of them will kill my brown ass given the chance, but I'm not assuming all them will kill.
I'm saying, that violence will most likely ensure your survival, when dealing with scum like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL

2. That beating up a racist will not trigger a violent backlash from the racist's friends or family.

I don't give a rats ass about a backlash from their friends or family, if they want a war they will get one.

Since you aren't being at ALL logical in your responses Windu, I will reply to you once more... and that will be all.

Quote:

I don't know what la la land you living in but these racist scum don't use logic, they aren't rational.

Again, nonsense. Just because racists are irrational on the subject of race... doesn't mean they "don't use logic". Like religious people, racists may be irrational on one issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't perfectly logical in every other area of their life.

Quote:

The majoriy of them will kill my brown ass given the chance, but I'm not assuming all them will kill.

"Majority" or "all", either way you're obviously incorrect. There are innumerable racists in the world, white racists, black racists, asian racists... Only a TINY proportion of them are violent people.

Quote:

I'm saying, that violence will most likely ensure your survival, when dealing with scum like this.

Again, sheer nonsense. You have heard the term "revenge attack", I presume?

Quote:

I don't give a rats ass about a backlash from their friends or family, if they want a war they will get one.

Ugh, Windu, in the beginning you stated that the reason you'd beat up any given "racist" would be to safeguard your own life. Now you're saying that you don't "give a rat's *ss" if your violent actions cause a backlash that might similarly threaten your life?

Are you out to protect your own life, or are you out to start trouble that might RISK your own life? Make your mind up.

Today's wrong could be tomorrow's right and the other way around. That's the way it was with the treatment of black people, their mistreatment something that has always been wrong, and someone who stood up for the rights of others whether it be Martin Luther King or Mohammed Ali or some vigilante or something would have been condemned forty years ago now being hailed as a hero.

As for Vaelastraz's points, you're right there are non violent solutions, and depending on the type of people you're dealing with they work most effectively. And you're right, the actions Windu suggests not only can it cause further violence through retalliation but it can put the people involved in a negative light, for example portraying black people as gangster stereotypes. But in the case of racists looking for a fight, let's face it these people are cowards. I know for a fact these type of people scare easy, they can be scared and inimitated into lifting their game, and proven fact the police won't do it even when they try. Being shown they have no future if they continue on the path they've chosen? That could work. But Windu's tactics, on the right people, I know from experiance are hard to beat.

I'm not sure if the thread can go anywhere but downhill from here, you can lock it now.

Since you aren't being at ALL logical in your responses Windu, I will reply to you once more... and that will be all.

You think everybody us logic in the world, much to learn you still have.
Also you could have it ignored me in the first place, I don't care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL

Again, nonsense. Just because racists are irrational on the subject of race... doesn't mean they "don't use logic". Like religious people, racists may be irrational on one issue, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't perfectly logical in every other area of their life.

Not everybody depend on a logic like a religion, like you do.
Say if I do follow your nonsense suggestion.
Then this possibilty may result: ~snipped~ OK, it's pretty darn hard to gross me out, but that's just blech. --Jae
Now is your suggestion nonsense ?Death is the result when nonviolent with scum like this.
So, I don't care how you feel, but I have a deep hatred for scum like this.
Violence will be the action I take with this scum.
You aren't not brown so don't have this experience of racism, so you don't know what the hell you are talking about, logic man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider AL

"Majority" or "all", either way you're obviously incorrect. There are innumerable racists in the world, white racists, black racists, asian racists... Only a TINY proportion of them are violent people.

You need to come back to the real world Spider and leave that imaginary world where everyone is rational and strictly use logic.

I'm for the right to believe what you want to, as well as the right to express your belief, but I also believe in the right to live free from harassment. If your belief offends someone, it's his own problem, if you follow him around trying to offend him because his beliefs are different than yours, you're just being an ass.

I agree with Windu to some degree. I do agree most people that are strongly prejudiced against you WILL do you harm if they can get away with it. I happen to be Jewish. I believe a Palestinian or Arab that has a strong disposition against Jews would in a second would assault me or worse. In the same respect, if someone came up and started harassing me and was goading me into hitting them, I'm not sure I wouldn't hit em. I won't say any details, but if someone decided to be grossly offensive to me and get in my face he'd probably need facial reconstructive surgery. Because in all honesty, spouting that kind of stuff is evil.

As for expressing your belief, I have no problem doing it and I have no problem getting heated, just don't go overboard and start getting to be nasty or rude.

Proud to be an American.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Edmund Burke

And it may not be logical to act this way, but for a lot os us logic doesn't help us sleep at night, believing we do the right thing does. It'd be the same thing as some masked Guy Fawkes vigilante went up against an evil government, people should fight against these people. Otherwise it'll just keep happening, proven fact.

So do i, [Believe in Freedom of Speech] as long as this doesn't go too far; controversial subject matter, abusive opinions etc.

Hang on a moment, you believe in freedom of speech... as long as people don't talk about controversial subjects? Surely you jest. So people can't talk about homosexuality, abortion, racism, war, politics?... all these things can be controversial. Sounds like madness to me.

-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallucination

I'm for the right to believe what you want to, as well as the right to express your belief, but I also believe in the right to live free from harassment. If your belief offends someone, it's his own problem, if you follow him around trying to offend him because his beliefs are different than yours, you're just being an ass.

This is absolutely correct. If someone were to "follow someone else around" merely trying to offend him/her... that might well be regarded as immoral behaviour.

Unfortunately, people sometimes accuse others of doing this when they're clearly not. For example, when one engages in a debate and puts forward an opinion that others don't like/are unable to refute, they sometimes resort to saying: "OMGZ you're just trying to offend me!!11" or something to that effect. In reality, this is just sour grapes. It's important to make the correct distinction.

-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavyarms

I agree with Windu to some degree. I do agree most people that are strongly prejudiced against you WILL do you harm if they can get away with it.

Purely hypothetical nonsense, my friend. You seem to be implying that "if there were no law enforcement/punitive justice, most of the racists would be violent". And obviously you have no evidence nor proofs to back this claim up. In reality, there are many racists in the world, and only a tiny minority are violent people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavyarms

In the same respect, if someone came up and started harassing me and was goading me into hitting them, I'm not sure I wouldn't hit em. I won't say any details, but if someone decided to be grossly offensive to me and get in my face he'd probably need facial reconstructive surgery. Because in all honesty, spouting that kind of stuff is evil.

Well you'd support V taking down the American government or the British government. To do otherwise would be amoral given the state it's gotten to. Yet his actions were far from right, they included kidnap, murder and brainwashing. Logically he should have gone to the police. Logically the government makes the rules. Logically doing the right thing means doing as you're told. But where does logic lie in a military state? Where the government is currupt? Where those who speak out are arrested? Furthermore, what is considered right and wrong varies, greatly, from person to person. How can you argue someone's logic when they are brought up to believe in justice? To not stand up against threats?

I don't know, nor do I care to know the story of 'V'. Please use arguments based on reality, rather those based on 'V', 'Star Wars' or any other movie.

And also... "logically doing the right thing means doing as you're told"... is nonsense. It makes no sense.

As for your "what is considered right and wrong varies" comment, it's irrelevant. What is right, is right, regardless of whether people recognise it or not. And using violence to shut people up when they're saying things that offend you (as you advocate) is NOT right. It is wrong. It is immoral, by ANY logical moral standard.

If someone says something that offends you and you hit them... you're not only just as bad as they are... you're arguably worse.

That's cold comfort for those who have been persecuted and ended up committing suicide. Those who have been killed because no one stopped those who were doing the wrong thing such as making racist comments. Not only is it cold comfort it's completely amoral.

Once again, you're assuming that your brand of violence is the only solution. There are plenty of ways of discouraging racist comments without resorting to vigilante violence and lynch-mob justice. Just because you WANT to hit people... doesn't mean you have a right to.

Ahahaha. Self defence has NOTHING to do with the type of violence you're advocating, Nancy. Self defence is when you're being PHYSICALLY attacked, then you can retaliate physically. Self defence isn't "He's just called me a name, so I can hit him in the face and call it self defence".

Justice is societally sanctioned proportionate response. It is not revenge, nor escalation... which are the immoral things YOU'RE advocating.

As for your renewed accusations that my arguments are fallacious... once again, these fallacies do not apply.

So, you can lable others as fallacious? But others can't lable you as such? This in itself is a fallacy, Special Pleading. You dress yourself up to make it appear that things do not apply to you, and furthermore what you don't think applies to you is then levelled at others. You can't have it both ways.

There are so many non-violent methods to try that it's hard to imagine that you'd exhaust them all and be left with no more non-violence left in the bag, Nancy.

I'm getting the impression that you WANT to hit people for merely verbally offending you... and are just looking for reasons to justify such an immoral act. There are no such reasons.

Okay, since you believe that whole-heartedly... how would you have stopped Hitler? You see, history has taught me something: you need to be vigilent in your defense or you let other people push you around. The world isn't as nice as you're making it seem, Spider. Non-violent means do not have the ability in a lot of cases to be coercive. I don't disagree with you that non-violence should be a last resort, but trust me when I say that conflict is definitely never off the table and is the best coercive method to get what you want in the diplomacy playbook.

By the way, if most racists could get away with it, they would definitely maul someone to death. Lynch mobs were common in the South at several times. Several genocides have happened. Genocides are the result of racists gaining power. Same with ethnic cleansing. Do not tell me that racists aren't violent.

And yes, I would strike someone for saying something to me. Do you know what a racist says? Do you know how much it hurts? I bet you don't. I've had some very disgusting, egregious, and downright disgusting things said to me. Want to see how racists act? See the movie American History X. You just might learn something.

As for whether or not I'm evil for hitting someone, maybe I would be. But then again, I've never thought of myself as a heavenly saint. So, ya know, they come out looking for one, I'd make em regret it. Because you don't come out doing that unless you want one.

Proud to be an American.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."-Edmund Burke

Were his posts guilty of fallacy then it would be fair to label them that way.

Funny thing about those who always say something's irrelevent or doesn't apply to them, you can never believe a word they say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

Now this is new, are you honestly implying that the things Al has said in debate are enough to warrant murder? Or am I completely misreading your post...because I rather don't like the tone of it.

I don't blame you, as I don't like his implication that I would act in such a way. Short answer is that people may think of me as the butcheress of Abu Ghraib, a Nazi Stormtrooper, some torture for fun witch that has a photo of Palpatine by my bed. Not true, the photo is of Anakin. Seriously, murder over words happens often enough, we saw it with things like the Mohammed cartoons and such an act is going several steps too far, but he was the one who made the accusation. If I was looking for an excuse to harm others then he wouldn't be here, but I'm not. By saying he wouldn't be here if he was accurate in his accusations however I demonstrate it's fallacy. I may as well say that he enjoys the conflict, the vacarious thrill of bringing down others, for how much of a Converse Accident the comment is. Would I commit murder over words? Why would I bother? Do his words justify murder? Raise that with the people he targets. Do I think it justifies murder? It's barely worth a reply much less anything I might be accused of. Now, it might be quite harsh of me to make such comments, but it's the truth. You see fights break out over words all the time. If I was looking for a fight you could rest assured that I would have tracked down someone online, it's not hard. However I know better. Believe what you want to the contrary, but the facts speak for themselves, I had not lifted a finger to harm someone because of what was said online, nor would I. If it warrented it I would chase up those who had the athority to do something about it. Anything more than that however is just not worth bothering with.

Putting these rambling diatribes littered with straw-men aside, let's return to the facts.

1. Nobody is "accusing" Nancy of anything. Nancy has stated, quite specifically, that she advocates the use of physical violence- and would feel justified in using physical violence herself- against people who say things that offend her. And I quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

I know that if someone called me a whore they'd end up in the hospital, if they're lucky.

QED.

2. An argument is either fallacious, or it is logical. There are strict definitions for fallacies, and none of the random accusations of fallaciousness that have been thrown around haphazardly during this debate apply to my arguments. End of story.

-

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavyarms

Okay, since you believe that whole-heartedly... how would you have stopped Hitler?

You must be joking. The Nazis murdered millions upon millions of people during their illegitimate wars and occupations. So of COURSE people were morally justified in defending themselves against the invading Nazis using physical force. That's "self-defence".

A guy who calls you a name on the street isn't "Hitler". He isn't an armed Nazi stormtrooper who has invaded your country. He's just an ignorant slob who has called you an offensive name. So do you have a right to smash his face in because he has offended you?

Of course you don't. That would make you worse than him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavyarms

The world isn't as nice as you're making it seem, Spider. Non-violent means do not have the ability in a lot of cases to be coercive. I don't disagree with you that non-violence should be a last resort, but trust me when I say that conflict is definitely never off the table and is the best coercive method to get what you want in the diplomacy playbook.

First, I've never suggested that the world is a nice place, nor even implied that it's CLOSE to being a "nice place". Therefore your assertion is meaningless.

Secondly I think you meant to say that VIOLENCE should be a last resort, not "non-violence". Non-violence is always the FIRST thing that the moral man resorts to.

Thirdly, physical conflict is not IN the "diplomacy playbook", because diplomacy by definition is not physical conflict.

Thirdly, the fact that violence "gets you what you want"... is irrelevant to the question of whether disproportionate violence is MORAL. And of course it isn't moral.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavyarms

And yes, I would strike someone for saying something to me.

That's immoral. It's merely petty, self-gratifying vengeance. It has nothing to do with self-defence or proportionate justice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavyarms

Do you know what a racist says? Do you know how much it hurts? I bet you don't. I've had some very disgusting, egregious, and downright disgusting things said to me. Want to see how racists act? See the movie American History X. You just might learn something.

Heh. I'd rather rely on my first-hand experience of how racists act, than form my opinions based on a fictional movie. Thanks anyway.

Secondly, of course I've witnessed racism, and I've even been on the receiving end of some. It doesn't matter HOW much words hurt. If you choose to take it to the next level, the PHYSICAL level... that's YOUR responsibility alone. No words can "make" you crack someone in the face with your fist.

If one chooses to hit someone for saying something one doesn't like... one is acting like (and in fact is) a violent, immoral thug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavyarms

As for whether or not I'm evil for hitting someone, maybe I would be. But then again, I've never thought of myself as a heavenly saint. So, ya know, they come out looking for one, I'd make em regret it. Because you don't come out doing that unless you want one.

I'd appreciate if you didn't try to moderate the Senate. That's what the moderators are for.

Simply because Hitler has been brought up, does not make you the victor, nor does it necessitate the closure of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

So your point is what? You're upset that I wouldn't act this way now?

I believe the point is you're once again contradicting yourself. You have stated quite explicitly that you would send someone who called you a "whore" to the hospital or worse. Now you are stating that you aren't the kind of person who would do that.

In an ideal world.."sticks and stones may break my bones, but word's will never hurt me" would be the the way of things. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. I suspect that Nancy is merely blowing off steam re al, but if I'm incorrect, perhaps he's lucky there's an ocean seperating them.

Simply because Hitler has been brought up, does not make you the victor, nor does it necessitate the closure of this thread.

#472 Godwin's Law
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There used to be a tradition in many groups that the thread would be closed once this occurred; whoever mentioned the Nazis was considered to have lost the argument that was in progress.

You say tomato...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ET Warrior

I believe the point is you're once again contradicting yourself. You have stated quite explicitly that you would send someone who called you a "whore" to the hospital or worse. Now you are stating that you aren't the kind of person who would do that.

This isn't the contradiction you're looking for. I don't deny any of that. It is however a far cry from looking for a fight, looking for a reason to attack others. Because the accusation was made it is a fallacy, a Hasty Generalization, to deny otherwise is a fallacy in itself, Special Pleading. And for those with short attention spans which would be...most of you, I want you to listen again. Yes, I would retalliate against things said to me, violently. And I support others doing the same thing. In my opinion saying things you know are upsetting is like feeding a tiger meat. However, just because I would react this way does not mean that I look for an excuse to do so. To insinuate otherwise is an insult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLONECOMMANDER501

Wow, you guys know how to fight

Well I guess one of us does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Totenkopf

In an ideal world.."sticks and stones may break my bones, but word's will never hurt me" would be the the way of things. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. I suspect that Nancy is merely blowing off steam re al, but if I'm incorrect, perhaps he's lucky there's an ocean seperating them.

Or is there? I would be if I cared enough about what he wrote, at the moment it's a struggle to even bother giving a reply. As I said if he was right about me looking for fights he would be dead. But he's not. I don't go looking for fights. If anything he does. How so? I get the impression that not only does he enjoy conflict and bringing down others anything you post will be disputed.

#472 Godwin's Law
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There used to be a tradition in many groups that the thread would be closed once this occurred; whoever mentioned the Nazis was considered to have lost the argument that was in progress.

You say tomato...

Oh my dear Nancy, I wasn't the person who brought Hitler up, Heavyarms was. In post #70. And since he is espousing the same- essentially amoral- argument that you are, by your... "logic"... YOUR side has "lost" because it played the Hitler card first.

But of course this is a nonsense, a childish nonsense. Heavyarms is and should be free to mention Hitler or the Nazis in his examples as much as he wants without someone like you arbitrarily declaring him to have "lost".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

This isn't the contradiction you're looking for. I don't deny any of that. It is however a far cry from looking for a fight, looking for a reason to attack others.

As stated before, you're looking for reasons to justify your pro-violence stance. You're looking for reasons to make it seem "moral", in fact. It's all you've done throughout this thread.

But it's not moral. Hitting people because they've offended you ISN'T MORAL. End of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

As I said if he was right about me looking for fights he would be dead. But he's not.

You know, I severely doubt you'd be capable of killing anyone anyway, I only say this because the majority of keyboard warriors only know how to type a good fight. So it goes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``

If anything he does. How so? I get the impression that not only does he enjoy conflict and bringing down others anything you post will be disputed.

This is a debating forum, Nancy. Its entire purpose in this world is to encourage systematised, logical dispute. So as long as you're here, posting illogical things... I will be here pointing them out. That doesn't mean I "enjoy fights", it means I enjoy debates, because they are fruitful. I wouldn't be here otherwise.